Trial reportBMJ quality & safety2025
Comparing safety, performance and user perceptions of a patient-specific indication-based prescribing tool with current practice: a mixed methods randomised user testing study.
Trial report in BMJ quality & safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05493072 (Safety, Performance, and User Perceptions of RxConnect When Used to Provide Patient-specific, Indication Based Prescribing Support), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Safety, Performance, and User Perceptions of RxConnect When Used to Provide Patient-specific, Indication Based Prescribing Support
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing quality of antimicrobial prescribing through 'Ask Eolas' (language model): a user-testing and simulation evaluation.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2026Article
- Evaluating the impact of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool on prescribing errors in paediatrics: a non-randomised, before-and-after study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- A mixed methods evaluation of an antimicrobial prescribing clinical decision support system app.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication errors are the leading cause of preventable harm in healthcare. Despite proliferation of medication-related clinical decision support systems (CDSS), current systems have limitations. We therefore developed an indication-based prescribing tool. This performs dose calculations using an underlying formulary and provides patient-specific dosing recommendations. Objectives were to compare the incidence and types of erroneous medication orders, time to prescribe (TTP) and perceived workload using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), in simulated prescribing tasks with and without this intervention. We also sought to identify the workflow steps most vulnerable to error and to gain participant feedback.
methodsA simulated, randomised, cross-over exploratory study was conducted at a London NHS Trust. Participants completed five simulated prescribing tasks with, and five without, the intervention. Data collection methods comprised direct observation of prescribing tasks, self-reported task load and semistructured interviews. A concurrent triangulation design combined quantitative and qualitative data.
results24 participants completed a total of 240 medication orders. The intervention was associated with fewer prescribing errors (6.6% of 120 orders) compared with standard practice (28.3% of 120 orders; odds ratio 0.18, p<0.01), a shorter TTP and lower overall NASA-TLX scores (p<0.01). Control arm workflow vulnerabilities included failures in identifying correct doses, applying maximum dose limits and calculating patient-specific dosages. Intervention arm errors primarily stemmed from misidentifying patient-specific information from the medication scenario. Thematic analysis of participant interviews identified six themes: navigating trust and familiarity, addressing challenges and suggestions for improvement, integration of local guidelines and existing CDSS, intervention endorsement, 'search by indication' and targeting specific patient and staff groups.
conclusionThe intervention represents a promising advancement in medication safety, with implications for enhancing patient safety and efficiency. Further real-world evaluation and development of the system to meet the needs of more diverse patient groups, users and healthcare settings is now required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05493072.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.